ML20209B498
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,,. g pS PIFeg y I /' h, UNITED STATES (( h ['*.f.., [ 1 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COV.*.ilSSION c;.y, j wasmscron, o c 2csss. g v::$: f 7 JUN 161932 Docket t;os.: '50-275 and 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR: R'ichard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering,liRR FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut Director Division of Licensing, NRR SU5 JECT: REVIEW OF FIRST INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT FOR Z: ~. _., DIABLO CANYON IDVP_- PHASE I Attached is the first Interim Technical-Report (ITR) issued by R. L. Cloud Associates for.the IDVP and approved by Teledyne, the IDVP Prcgram Manager. Teledyne intends to issue possibly as many. as 30 of these reports in accordance with Section 9.1 of the IDVP Program Management Plan dated March 29, 1982-We request'that ycu review the conclusions and their bases presented in the report with respect to proposed additional. verification and sampling. In addition you should -evaluate the ITR as a method to present IDVP findings on which the staff will base its SER supple-mant. While PG&E will issue a final report on the IDVP in accordance with the Commission Order of November 19, 1981 the intent of the ITRs is to provide the results of completed IDVP tasks so that the staff can initiate its review'on these elements. We request your coments on the specific contents of the first ITR and on the general ITR concept by June 22, 1982. J.. ..- 1. - ), ~ 'Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing, NRR
Attachment:
As stated cc: H. Denton E. Case R. Engelken J. Crews E. Jordan p soo4* q Ime A m
m s .[
- 3j; ;
"84 UNITED STATES ' 'l y e - - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIEN _ 'E.- REoioN iv Tc( Ak h
- f 3
- s11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SulTE 1000 3 y, ARLINGTON. TEXAS 70011 o {p JUN 2 31982 6W ~ m SN 81-M[%[ A LF' ) MEMORANDUM FOR:. Daniel G..Eisenhut,~ Director, Division of Licensing ,,,{ FROM: John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV .[j
SUBJECT:
RESULTS OF VPB INSPECTION OF TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES-if REGARDING ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING THE FITZPATRICK AND-YANKEE ELECTRIC FACILITIES (VITS 82-39)- The Division of Licensing (D. G. Eisenhut)' requested that. Region IV. determine the validity and safety significance: of concerns expressed to NRC with respect to hydrodynamic analyses and lesign modifications of the torus and its associated components and piping af the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plants. Results of our inspection are summarized in Section D.2 of inspection report 99900513/82-01, attached. Five nonconformances were identified. The. alleger indicated that the use of-unqualified individuals, excessive management schedular pressure, inaccurate. analytical models, and use of erroneous input data, could result in possible deficiencies in the hydrodynamic analyses'for. structural integrity, and in the subsequent. design of internal and external component supports for the Mark I con-tainment and its associated catwalks and pipingi Review of available records and-interviews with selected engineering, management, and " contract" personnel did not confirm the allegation that unqualified individuals were used to perform.the analyses,-nor that mange-ment applied excess schedular pressure to the analysts such that the quality and integrity of the analyses were compromised. The allegations concerning inaccurate analytical models, and the use of' estimated f dimensional input data for certain preliminary design modifications i made in early 1981, were substantiated. However, it is-recognized that. the design activities performed during 1981 were preliminary _in nature, using similar data from similar plants, all of which could be viewed \\. by some as erroneous or inaccurate design methods. Plants involved in' V these analyses were J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone Unit 2, Nine Mile \\ T Point Unit.1, Pilgrim Unit 1, and Vermont Yankee nuclear power plants. f Review of a sample of design modification drawings transmitted to the affected plants did not reveal any significant design defect or deficiency N'\\ emm i Mt
n- ' 'GC. -4
- L,*.
J' Memo to Eisenhut that would prevent the torus and the suppression system from performing ' their intended safety functions during a LOCA or system abnormal condition. Teledyne Engineering Services management stated that all calculations related to the Mark I torus, and its internal components, would be reviewed and redone, as necessary. These actions will be completed by August 31, 1982. This' item will be further evaluated by VPB during future inspections.' _If you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact us. / 44 John T. Collins Regional Administrator Attachments: NRC Inspection Report 99900513/82-01 cc: R. F. Heishman, IE R. L. Baer, IE J. E. Gagliardo, RIV E. H. Jo~hnson, RIV R. C. Haynes, RI J. P. Knight, AD, CSE 1 l t L
I UNITED STATES g it *s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV $11 RYAN Pt.AZA ORIVE. SulTE 1000 '1 ARUNGTON. TEXAS 76011 =.... Docket No. 99900513/82-01 Teledyne Engineering Services ATTN: Mr. F. C. Bailey President 130 Second Avenue Waltham, MA 02254 __ Gentlemen: This refers'to the inspection can' ducted by Mr. D. F. Fox of this office on March 29-April 2,1982, of your facility at Waltham, Massachusetts, and to the discussion of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. This inspection was made as a result of concerns expressed to NRC pertaining to possible deficiencies in the structural analyses of the torus catwalks and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants. Areas examined during this inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews l with personnel, and observations by the inspector. During this inspection it was found that you failed to meet certain NRC requirements. The specific findings and references to the pertinent requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter. Please provide us within 30 days from the date of this letter a written statement containing: (1) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have ( been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown. s i t =' e g m e"-w e e
' G i. J. E, r. is .Teledyne Engineering Services
- The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance
. procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.of 1980, PL 96-511.. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commiss' ion's regulations, a copy. of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed.in the NRC's Public Document Room. If this report.contains any information that you believe.to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it'is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within'10 days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for -withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such information. If your receipt. of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days are avai'lable for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Consistentwithsection2.790(b)(1), any such application must be. accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the information which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it claimed that the information'should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will.be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Programs Branch
Enclosures:
1. Appendix A - Notice of Nonconformance 2. Appendix B - Inspection Report No. 99900513/82-01 3. Appendix C - Inspection Data Sheets (12 pages) d
[ 4 ,s.. 2 y y APPENDIX A <' [q Teledyne Engineering Services Docket No. 99900513/82, NOTICE OF NONCONFORMANCE. Based on the results of an NRC inspection conducted on March 29-April 2, 1982, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full com-pliance with NRC requirements as indicated below: Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 states: " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures,~or drawings. Instructions, procedures, or drawings shall include appro-priate quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria for determi.'ing that important activities have been satisfactorily" accomplished." Nonconformances with this criterion are as follows: A. Project 5511 Program Plan - Design Reverification Program) imposes Pacific Gas and Electric specification, dated November 11, 1981. (Specification for Consultant's Quality Assurance Program), on Teledyne Engineering Services (TES). Paragraph-4.1.3 of the specification requires that records be retained in accordance with the storage requirements of ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1979 and that " Record storage shall include measures for protection from inadvertent destruction and include, as a minimum, two hour fire protection or duplicate storage at separate. locations." Contrary to the above, the QA record storage facility does not include measures for protection from inadvertent destruction described in ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1979, does not provide for 2-hour fire protection, nor were duplicate records stored at separate locations. Specifically, the TES single-record storage facility does not meet the NQA-1 criteria 7 l for facility construction, drainage control, 2-hour minimum fire rating, piping penetrations, and documentation of review for adequacy by an individual competent in the technical field of fire protection and fire extinguishing. Further, certain records relating to QA in-doctrination and training, historical files of superseded issues of Quality Assurance Procedures and Technical Engineering Procedures, and specifications and other technical documents referenced in pro-curement documents, were neither stored in a single storage facility nor were duplicates stored at separate locations. %d 6 h0N dff
.s_ M, 1, .s. ' 1 e'c . g T Teledyne Engineering Services - ~ B. Section 3.1 of the TES Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) states in.part that, " Design activities shall be prescribed and accomplished in' accordance with this manual....." k Contrary to the above, certain design activities wer'e' not being accom. plished in accordance with the QAM.- Deficiencies observed in the hydrodynamic analyses and design modifications for the torus of the Mark I containments of the Fitzpatrick, Millstone, Nine Mile Point, Pilgrim, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants are as follows: 1. Section 3.0.1 of the QAM states in part that, "The Analyst... shall include sufficient referencing of source data, principles, equations, etc., to pennit the ready traceability of his. efforts for calculations...." y Contrary to the above, the analyst did not inclinde sufficient referencing of principles, equations, and source data, to permit ready traceability of his efforts for torus calculations (e.g.,2253-3-and2252-2). Furthermore, the checker did not-perform his prescribed duties as evidenced by the fact that these calculations, exhibiting his signature, did not accurately reference principles, design equations, data sources, and other means which provide traceability of the work.. 2. Section 3.6.3 of the QAM states in part that, 'h Mf_n 6 t QA Record...." Contrary to the above, design verification documentation was not: treated with the status of a Project QA record as evidenced by the fact that completed calculations which exhibited the signatures of the originator, checker, and design verifier.were not entered into the TES document control system, nor were they stored in accordance with QA record storage requirements.. C. to the Project Quality Assurance Programs (PQAP) for the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone, and Vermont Yankee projects, states in part, "The latest revision of the following documents are applica c ble... TES Engineering Procedure EP-1-001, General Control Proce-dure...." Sections 1.1 and 2.1 of EP-1-001 state-in part that, "The work controlled by this Engineering Procedure is being performed for the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) under TES project number 2386 (J. A. Fitzpatrick)... the following Technical Engineering Procedures are invcked... TEP-1-003 (Design / Analysis Control)... (and) TEP-8-008 (Project Personnel Assignment)...." i y.. m I_
I l a i b Teledyne Engineering Services Contrary to the above: 1. Engineering Procedure EP-1-001 is not imposed on the Millstone or Vermont Yankee plants. 2. Technical Engineering Procedures TEP-1-003 and TEP-8-008 were not being implemented on the Fitzpatrick project. D. PQAP's establish maximum intervals between audits of project activi-ties by the Quality Assurance organization and the conditions and requirements under which they can be waived. Contrary to the above, audits of project activities were not accomplished within the maximum allowed intervals, nor were they waived in accordance with the prescribed conditions and requirements as evidenced by the following examples: 1. Revision 1 of the PQAP for Fermi 2 established a requirement for bimonthly audits beginning in November 1981. Provisions for waiving a scheduled audit are also contained in the PQAP; however, the waiver must be documented and concurrence of the project manager and quality assurance manager is required. Contrary to the above, an audit of the Fermi 2 project was not accomplished in November 1981, nor were records supporting a waiver of audit available. i h
I f [t. :.- Teledyne Engineering Services 2. Revision 6 of the PQAP for Vermont Yankee (October 29, 1981) ~ established a requirement for internal QA audits to be conducted every 3 months. Revision 5 (August 8, 1980) established a requirement for bimonthly audits. Contrary to the above, bimonthly audits of the Vermont Yankee project were not accomplished during the period from August 8, 1980, through October 29, 1981, nor has the quarterly audit scheduled for February 1982 been conducted to date. 3. Revision 4 of the PQAP for Millstone Unit 1 (October 30, 1981) established a requirement for internal audits to be conducted ~ every 3 months. Revision 3 (August 8, 1980) established a requirement for bimonthly audits. Contrary to the above, bimonthly audits of the Millstone Project were not accomplished during the period August 8,1980, through October 30, 1981, nor have any quarterly audits, required since October 30, 1981, been conducted to date. E. Section 17.3.b of the Teledyne Engineering Services Quality Assurance Manual (Record Retention), contains a 6 year retention requirement for audit records. ~ Contrary to the above, all PQAP's examined (eight different projects) contained a QA Records Requirement List which required retention of audit reports for only 1 year. l l l l 1 l. [
J.,.,. ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTMAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 DATE(S) 3/29-4/2/82 ON-SITE HOURS: 79 CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Teledyne Engineering Services ATTN: Mr. F. C. Bailey President ^ 130 Second Avenue Waltham, MA 02254 ORGANIZATIONAL CONTACT: Mr. C. G. Sprangers, Manager, Quality Assurance TELEPHONE NUMBER: (617) 890-3350 PRINCIPAL PRODUCT: Engineering and Consulting Services. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACTIVITY: Approximately 90% of the staff of the Waltham, Massachusetts, facility and 30% of the Hayward, California, facility are involved in nuclear activities. Major projects include work on Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, V. C. Summer Unit 1, Fermi Unit 2, Limerick Unit 1, and Diablo Canyon Unit 1. ASSIGNED INSPECTOR: b c O M D. F. EgRe'ac' tor Systfris Section (RSS) Date OTHER INSPECTOR (S): A. L. Smith, Equipment Qualification Section APPROVED BY: U Oh C. J. (Haje, Chief, RSS ~ Date INSPECTION BASES AND SCOPE: A. BASES: 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. t B. SCOPE: This inspection was made as a result of concerns expressed to NRC pertaining to possible deficiencies in the analysis for structural integrity of the torus catwalk and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont-Yankee Nuclear Power Plants; to evaluate the in place quality assurance program; and conduct an initial management meeting. 1 PLANT SITE APPLICABILITY: J. A. Fitzpatrick, Docket 50-333; Millstone Unit 1, Docket 50-245; Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Docket 50-220; Pilgrim Unit 1, Docket 50-293; Vermont Yankee, Docket 50-271; Diablo Canyon, Occket 50-275; and Enrico Fermi 2, Decket 50-341. %g 1 s g.
.4 ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 2 of 6 A. VIOLATIONS: None B. NONCONFORMANCES: 1. Contrary to the Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the Diablo Canyon Project Program Plan, QA records were not stored in a single record storage facility which meets the imposed require-ments of ANSI /ASME NQA-1-1979, nor were the duplicate records stored in separate locations. 2. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and section 3.0 of the QA Manual (QAM), design activities related to Mark I contain-ment torus hydrodynamic analyses and design modifications for the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone, Nine Mile Point, Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants were not being accomplished in accordance with the QAM. Specific examples of this nonconformance are: (a) Hydrodynamic analyses did not include sufficient referencing of source data, principles and assumptions to permit ready traceability as required by section 3.6.1 of the QAM. Further, the checker of hydrodynamic analyses did not perform the duties prescribed in section 3.6.2 of the QAM i as required by section 3.6.1 of the QAM. (b) Calculations exhibiting the signatures of the originator, checker and the design verifier were not treated with the status of a QA record as required by section 3.6.3 of.the QAM. 3. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the Project Quality Assurance Program (PQAP) for the J. A. Fitzpatrick, Millstone, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants, activities affecting quality regardir,g Design / Analysis Control, Project i Personnel Assignment, and Project General (Engineering) Control were not accomplished in accordance with prescribed procedures in that the required procedures were either not imposed or not being implemented on the above projects. 4ce
- w 4
de g 6**-"'
I. 4 ~ ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT 1hdPtLiluN NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 3 of 6 4. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and the. PQAP's for the Fermi 2, Millstone and Vermont Yankee projects, audits were not accomplished within the specified intervals, nor were they waived in accordance with the prescribed conditions and requirements. 5. Contrary to Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and Section 17 of the QAM,.PQAP's for eight projects contained a requirement to retain audit records for a period of 1 year, rather than for 6 years as required by the QAM. C. UNRESOLVED ITEMS: None D. OTHER FINDINGS OR COMMENTS: 1. Management Meeting - The purpose, scope,' and nature of the Licensee, Contractor and Vendor Inspection Program were reviewed with the President of Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) and the Quality Assurance Manager. The concerns expressed to NRC with respect to possible errors and deficiencies in the hydrodynamics load analyses of General Electric (GE) Mark I containment torus components, and in the subsequent design of related component supports, were outlined. The format, content, dissemination and publication of NRC inspection reports, and TES responses thereto, were discussed in detail. 2. Possible Analytical Deficiencies - An inspection was conducted to determine the validity.and safety significant of concerns expressed to NRC that the use of unqualified individuals, inaccurate analy-tical models, erroneous input to structural calculations and excess management schedular pressure could result in possible deficiencies in the analyses for structural integrity, and in the subsequent design of internal and external component supports for the torus and its associated catwalks and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Flants. Review of TES records, and interviews with cognizant personnel, indi-cate that TES was contracted by the owners of the.Fitzpatrick, Millstone Unit 1, Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Pilgrim Unit 1 and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Stations, in 1975-1976, to provide consulting services and to perform certain analyses and design 1 .~. -. w ,.r.- w =--- 'r
e ~ ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 4 of 6 modifications pertaining to the torus of their Mark I containments. Some design modifications have already been supplied to and incorporated by the affected plants; however, the total contract effort is not scheduled for completion until late August 1982. Review of employment, training, and qualification records, and interviews with selected engineering, management, and " contract" personnel, did not confirm the concerns that unqualified individuals were employed to do this work nor that TES management subjected the analysts and designers to schedular pressures such that the quality of their work was compromised. However, the NRC inspector noted that TES did not have documented instructions or procedures to assure that the technical qualifi-cations (education, training, and related experience) claimed by newly hired permanent or contract eraployees conducting safety-related activities, was verified, stored with the status of a QA record, or that appropriate corrective action was taken when anomalies or inconsistencies were uncovered. TES management stated that appropriate procedures would be developed and implemented prior to June 30, 1982. This item will be followed during future inspections. Detailed examination of the structural analyses, the resulting design modification drawings and their supporting stress calcula-tions, and interviews with cognizant personnel, indicate that the allegations relative to use of inaccurate analytical models and erroneous input data to structural calculations were based on factual observations made during a 4-month period in early 1981. With respect to the use of inaccurate analytical models, the NRC inspector determined that the analysts: (1) used the structurally similar Millstone torus drawing to obtain needed dimensions as inputs to Pilgrim hydrodynamic i scoping and analyses since all. requisite Pilgrim data was not available at the time; (2; changed the analysis techniques from a dynamic analysis to an allegedly equivalent static analysis without documented justification; ..,w
e ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPtCi10N NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 5 of 6 (3) used preliminary and undocumented hydraulic forces as inputs to the calculations; (4) did not document the sources of design inputs nor assumptions in the calculation packages. TES management stated that;. (1) these deficiencies are unique to work related to the identified plants and, therefore, are'not generic in nature; and (2) the proper Pilgrim dimensional data has already been incorporated into Pilgrim calculations. In response to nonconformance B.2 above, TES committed to the following corrective actions: (1) the engineering justification for using a static analysis method would be documented; (2) all affected calculations would be redone using the latest GE published hydraulic forces and applicable analyses methodology; (3) sources of design inputs and assumptions would be documented in the calculation packages; (4) all resulting design modification drawings and supporting stress calculations, including those previously transmitted to the affected plants would be reviewed and revised as needed. The above actions will be completed by August 31, 1982. One other nonconformance was identified in this area of the inspec-tion. (See item B.3 above.) This area will be further examined during a future inspection. Furthermore, the NRC inspector noted that Revision 0 of Technical Engineering Procedures TEP-2-004, TEP-3-002, TEP-3-003, TEP-6-008, and TEP-7-004 were not reviewed and approved by the QA Manager as required by section 3.2.1 of the QAM as evidenced by the lack of signature of the QA Manager on the subject procedures. Since later revisions of these, and other procedures, were reviewed in accordance with the QAM, and since the QA Manager agreed to document his review and approval of the subject procedures, no nonconformance was identified. This item will.be followed in a future inspection. 3. QA Program Evaluation - The TES Corporate Policy Manual, Quality Assurance Manual, unique PQAP's, and the related detailed imple-menting procedures governing the areas of QA Program, organization,
-L'. i-ORGANIZATION: TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS REPORT INSPECTION NO.: 99900513/82-01 RESULTS: PAGE 6 Of 6 engineering control, procurement control, QA records, and audits were reviewed to determine that they were consistent with the quality and technical requirements that have been imposed on TES. The documentation of completed work in these areas, con-sisting of training records for 14 individuals, 1 manage-ment evaluation of the QA program, 8 internal QA audit files, 2 external QA audit files, qualification records for 2 audit team leaders, 4 purchase orders for TES services, 5 TES purchase orders to subcontractors, 3 drawing files, and applicable QA records, were examined to verify program imple-mentation. Three nonconformances were identified in this area of the inspection. (See items B.1, B.4, and 8.5 above.) l l l l I
PERSONS CONTACTED Ccmpany Te t s ovo c
- Eyt, Texv Dates 3 /19 - y /z/7 2 Docket / Report No. 9 99 00 J/3 /T 2-o /
Inspector 3 F. Fo x Page'I_of I 'L NAME(Please Print) TIT 1.E(Please Print)- ORGANIZATION (Please Print) h/'iCbcl0.$ {e //0 /honager- &n aln'<cb N/ dyne [non. hev'ic8: a ~ < o~a nom es wax rss Mans y. Des 4ar $Nskng ff3 Y,e s # j~/a o,. yr L,,nno a Kandna Decorme emi Sucin-TE;5 3 % Cule Ma \\es kne E Jamed & %.e f m 7~ES Los s Nvor n e c.pn n sw,,, heq lAlttuam E Coopfz Conwrnur twiveew< 721 h o F N oees sz V,e-Pe =w r /c=r &ckJ A. &s nwe e.- i%;es 7er 8# 17 Hon / L / n e,h ee,- vrs ~ ~ 0ATMY/4 eave & Gompuk L opp 765 lov?s7-D.L - eMame,u Desh n Tc~5 4 i Q i l l 1
ne n yct.tu r L). \\-f x 'l 9 9 0 0 $~ / 3/4 2 -c I stcport Igo. Paije ~( of 14 Scope /Ilodule T[( w t ~f"if 412/3A2 DOCullfillS EXAllilllD t, 1 2 IIILE/suoJtcI 3 4 1 3 TES 4. <, 4 %,,, - c. ( c. >., / 2,). su ),;w 2. m Jr.,a 2 s r-2,o_ A i h 2 3 Tne (Dud ry A nvirsn.a Air ust < s u m s ~,n p t,nt ) JJ .;hv2 ci i e,..,g 4_ ta, .1 w" ~ 1 t 3 I m - c-c y n - 'az 'c, o u,,n n,,,, _/ ~,, zu,, a, 1 site -2 4tc * (Iv}u n/1 Arta. fr TA-ZYYZ-/.D rey;\\ru im13Zsr)pyr,v I 't Y $.$seks ey L rs 21 r as vn.. t n [ T Esv 16 YT 1.sa~. A u,ar/r -M //s 4n o 9 6,/ul,ii4 k /*$ Bar /> % -$./ ar 2 $Hi s ao-t M g_. \\*is. $ v n i 1 kc/y Es n is TF% F t. w s v u e u sav a,/ sh o w 'I JA _.2..- n - t t a 'J g-y-tg o a Ar.is1 a vr.1.o Auan,,, A 1,< GIL,L 3r~/rr Asecby A a,. tvaU,,.A
- d is u w < < /:< ora n
7 3 . ~1A.,J,,_.. -. :t. oe vr / ,, A. > Y,a"E Jt%41_ % 'f ~ *Fr k Z 3 TEP-l-00l"%g ' ha,. Ar, sik.. Arr, 1 e - 2.i - r c o I~ ya ;>,, I ,lo < 'l 1,sihn a l ofi]> h L,'a < C, PO N t Kr4 5 8. mia u ne % Ts'U ?[ ? 4 - rms si n Io 2.
- )SCD A A S oec. A. Dl -B Are.,,v, I, Jn ?DW'?!,N<,,'I"AUcT ;
v -i r-,c .1 .I s o -, r ? / 7E3 P/$A P E3's un A A fn),1n.,,) C 3) x U. at iI A ocuo q - s - td a g iL 3 [P&,,,,su.) [F 00 L (Gs,,n, / Cm4v/ J% c <4.s ) L J'n;i / 21 % V It-st-FD__ l c v z. g - ;g o l lb kn n.r.Lxu A/ rL,. PO / 70 42., Ve rwwl,J& du %, a we,l,1.<X. z-st->L n % nta Gn ans PSAA kn c>e losiZwersic -se<>, .r u,Aa. co w,,lf5~ H / i my su.n '9 IY 8 1/fDO - 2 / 9SV (GE]/}4Mk Ge swm,nn fx ou sm LoJDhuunn, DR%NS 1 \\ l6 1 1)Eno - Dl5~81 (6E) Au1.Ga. Int. AmDA>ser lus D anghw .A rn a so rt. t*1 1 TCs(F1 lwk,) % ACf ~(r o.ss c):%' z. cs.s s %it,y tan <rir h,As-i-t4-E I M IT h~ R CT Y G $' i 76 - Ll CED //>rAnlic fiSp f, aL,a AEas, d'rsrleo Te, mi 2. U?'YI L l i Document Types: '. colisms : 7 1. Drawing 5. Purchas Order 1.' Seiluential itern flisal 2. Specification 6. Internal llemo 2. Type of 1)ocisnent. 3. Date of Docisnent 3. Procedure 7. Letter 4. QAflanual 8. Oihey (spect fy-lf necessary) , 4. fievisIon(Ifapplica
.5 t ..g )T, E 2 = 3q { t p [ % o - c W O'
- C
< be gttt o_c o 4 gy .gga
- o me:
O, - O Q -=- i w t >R'C R%.ogM gspSRQ,e.::, R s 3;;.! a,
=
2g 6; E ? 4 A d ,t ru + e .ig., i 4 ai ,s ,d..' t:M. ' ' h-2s
- g. E *! ;;
$3 1 ; 4 N * '* e,,,d 1 3 s ,, M i -~-
- 3. s e.s %a i s
..x=. o,,,. e tt q;;;;4 gm-== n r -(,T q g g 4 1
- 3. : 4e;4 f
3 sb f g .k' ,:,2 i y ~ .n R N s@.J 4* O N,s q] gJ1 (* Q w c N .v v p q ~ na s J{ d N' ei
- g t A q
p q .1 st .1 .s s 'b h ) E d d N: $. N i
- s x
n e .4 s N ~- s %Q *{ 4 a .a ,3 s. s s b 4 3 N 4 s p r x
- 5 %Y I
% sl et 2y a% .- m 9 s 1 .a 3 h J i sk x' j 4 4 L"d4)E .=
- u K
0d4 ; 7.,j k c$D 's.,k* E ti f'd d E ! 8 4 i 'iftsE* 4!M'b; l .D. l w<.: Do t 4 4
- C 1 0 4
c m t 1 e s C d h gs N ~ e r = w 3 g x 440 i,s*,,,d f DD Q %5 S. 4 s.9 's.- w ^ y E P d. id.i 1 7 E R [ t t 4
- N h
E r o s t+ 4 %:4 J h ~ a 1 q s = j sm = e I X k N Q y 8 +< s W N l f!sh.I,{ t I N k 'f s I EN'y 1 E [<U 9 s,
- c.,: s 3 4 g e a
e .g = s 9
- ) -{
T s}Fb <t% N <3 @ @ T x ? Q % d b as . + 4 3 .<4 3 l ) *w m s uQ M 4 0 'o -a A d g y E.! E r e e -( % 38 % t eet.u a rJ s-E 5 e s c> c N ??. o. i 4 i m 3 ( [b he\\ ~ ) 3 4 S S +D q ? ; z ~? ms ('; h (; s} h I h ) 3., s' n~h i R-H % C l gd,:d e 55 u e.M %,d s m 3 u .w A
- u. c.. a e 't w t.s. y as w w % c, N O u 4 2
N e a k %a-f c) u-iJ u w % eo w m ce " m ,o k w-2; e.,3 h a e ~=tig T 3 0 a.*e u e =. u q g=mua 3 .b M "J" b N.4 ("" @ 0"' o N O Dh 's1 C C*N"' ,- y p N A d N N N g N m ec to m ~' r. m I lii " ':f
'$~ ,y;, 1, J ~' i [. .f-i. ',*""- g' ' r' 4 D 9-N* F .C Q Q -Q 'O -CM M*1
- g.
TT"g A _gg=: i s o s y' a cg 'ESS~ E ', s W p -4. '. s J Qb "ww{ ,,i [E qi Q bg h 4 A be. $aN S' .=. t i, e =oo-i N,. b d E.Y-m g' J M a,MES@ [3 A22-4 ? 3 :c ;,: 3 ,ah - @3 3s sg r 6 h-h d $s +
- 4. 41 1
- a t:
11 ' ", isih! 4 tu, N M{ e-m s d: Th i q h r s ? r s ,s s s hr, w 'A 1 h s;l %.?a g- %' s q } ] h}) s' % Q s 4 i s '] ) 1 e-1 ( 4 .Wi @,.] "] c e - I 7.s ' d 4 hN .g s 4 e J *{ l ~ ,st *:; %s pQ t .w S'Al'1. G .'$ >U S s., s l" h 1 9s.:: w w 4 x ~ h 1 N "J" k 'c g 3 s s => s.s 3 4 F -3 '^ y 3 N a m s; s, 3 E b e 7 I S F 7, %* v' = x .,t q t:
- d s
w = s t 4.5 s. s N t' 5 Ni 2 4
- p. '
a 4 j d j % g j ,j j a s a i m a m l d g
- R t T g4 $
s 3 w s a d J 'M I N
- k q%
{ h 5 N.. E t t ; 1 k 7 t > d E 3 .i., i 3 s*s ~ y % I Ng% N N 8 M g g N y2 g g I p ( q l M U N 4 .=Ce6 d t N .*w N N Mw u' U " 5 _I N i m s s
==e-N L-ao y q D 'k, SA, a bd U L ( y R ; i.g 9 9 6644 i S w r 1 a ~ 4 w L o % v v 0 % 0 0 2 2 48 H 1 = J s Q e ee-m b'% 6-N cm w i; J h g ~ 7 7 y U
- DT.
TEUo* e1 Es&ts j } rs M C-g c4 M > b S e' M r-S...,. g y m,, y w.> '4 > >-..> .r ~m I E' = v-4/'t -= sus..-.. MA T id mi ssigguinus eiiii
tManncWmdcansi i Compan'y ~rEL Eb1NE E4cwetews SERvet5 Dat3s mecM 14-Aren-t 10f t Docket / Report No. 999005/3 /r z'-o / - Inspector A ti/A t.. SM #7N Page ? of IL 1AME(Please Print) TITI.E(Please Print). ORGANIZATION (Please Printl C. G. SPRAWGEA"4 0 A /YGMqcr2 b / goy.vt fxCA%s,ffA* Vin .T// k1MONSb// Q A 37Ed/AL/3 f TEUDYHf1 Arv/rn~s ( /f' (nN/iT NES/4/WL tu u xcr Ifl'f. [ M <. Pu. OK OHLvnD 6? A.S Sc MuS 7' TEL E b ? /VE' 0/l/$YSA4 (JPdWS/k hhfA/l~ Tl"6 C D YAl5 bA kO:l-lno ht 1mpn4 OOnl._$ nt b t) T*M J a 4 e 4 e 6 l l
ll )l c i G / f / a o 4 l / d p p ?. o a i u o Q f h= y h /s o r n i N 2 / h h fr 4 h /r hf fe ttf s a /, Y f /o g,4 n 8 I 4 r s r /* mnnI 3 e eee f i m m.. i o e s o t I uu o cco l ooN N d ADD t .i n r stffo o e onooi p g He s e a ueei H P n q pt v s meyae r uSTDR e l v o.... Cl234 A n r ef n o c. uo c A o 'I ) F F S S 7 L 1 E 7 f S C / 4 A / A A f T D V o M T 9 8 E T A t / / s P N C E 5 3 8 C n I E M J S 5 7 S I 7 ) 'S )/ / S lZ / L S N A B 2 8 I + 5 e S X U A E S G-S 3 5 CE + 4 4 A R T I / Z S E N S Z b T M s T L / 2 N T K k M T E T T T 7 A f E r t E I c o E i T T C c c K s U N c-E E G O c/ s C c E E C Z E 3 t n. D N r E E T 'o o o u E L E o I T o. P P P E r A T 7 f r r b 7 o g x o c c c N P P P C L F s s R A P / e t / / )y (S o o r E L r e a t ~ s 4 / / p r s v U F 1 s b N H M M M r T 9 0 e / ) c E A 1 M F A A R A A b ~ v e 1 t A / f L 'l n E A A t R E g W 7 T Y r G G s A t A f t R s G u T C s S O o o s r i o o R l r b b / s C o o o r E a C P P P P P F P r u u v M K f r y n r a A A i eo f r w u dm i t. E w re c A U S OM e n A u S A A e T S S A A A A p Y el S v v A A A Q Q Q Q Q Q Q c w H E A" E C" 7 T sa ( / anr T s 1 b D hrer + T 4 n / f r c c / E t u u cet e I r Y T M A T T T T T rtth E G c d A unet S f T c c E C C c PILO f Y I E E E T E H T T A A o C L 3 T o O 0 O / W v T. A L E I o 1 A A 5678 A a P L U o o r i L 2 R 9 Q Q t t P f f P P 1 f / f t A O V A P Q P P L G no A i e s t l r u e ael o d p cra t o 2 8 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 7 7 8 a Tnfdn y gi u u c M e / iiea t wccM p p naeo s o 3 + mDSPQ erprA n c l z / E, 3 4 S C } 8 9 D I S I I / 1 j l uco.... D1,2 3 4 i! 4l i j
N
- Ns v
w a A' Qs~ 3 R% h h h h h h h $ ~h. h ll s ess: 88e = n t .2==e E E 8Et%S E e
- 8..:
~ is ,g m c"% 8 om a d d e;4 G t, =~ ~ A h h k k D* 4 A 4 M E a w a 5 s 4 3, 4 t= t, a? 9 0 e. :, ",. s a m m ~ s ~ j N N 5 I
- T q'
U E M N i g u u s w ) b A 3 L L u u g g s k g 9 h 8 a a = a N 4 ) d (O' k a. o o e e v S k s e s u s = ? { N 4 b I 8 S. 8 a 4 g [ I e e 4 i x 2 a a t t t g e R < s I t ,$ n=t I- ~ 5 R A s a g# 3 R u = w n y w 3 3 a .e TE 4 h g g R R g u sf 8 3 s s k 6 3 s s g 4 x= 4 s@ W G I k A A A A o-s g A, A w 28u- ,9 W A 3 3 xa u x x ~ u nu.u ~ N k N N$ k f Q g { 6 d d 6 k E R E3 *o t
- sas E
g C0 ee e 's a 8 % e- $g5ji j g 'S to eo to 5 g g I 8 T388* ~ h 2 C 5 r U 0 D Q M is&ts. d Y
lusvt:c Lor AL VA L. SM ITt/ l(tipor t. Eto, H 4 -0 5 Scop /Hodule CA PRor,*AM cvAwd7eov DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page 7 of 1 1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 ( ca 29 f TELEDYNE P D. 1).5990 (co4 TIN 9M 'DYhAnica) 1Nlrt f 30 L N USCO QA SPEctF/cA T/on 4.o1 - 8 Q J 3l Z ANSI N+S. 2. 2 3 - 19 71 19 72 i' 32. 2. SPECIA t. @ bocunENT foo Z (R0DA lbwEx kronT CD,) pp{, '3 33 L SPccIA L. QA ECu M ITUT' joo3 (ficx t>A lbo6A $ l/CHT Co.) f& S 3f f 7EL EDYAs E P. o. S9x+ (Tt!AME 3 t/A L s.E Y STEd *) 9/e/sj 37 f TELEbv^>E P. 0 Sco9 OTT Cstwrte) It/esh 9 (, S TELEbYNE P. O. Sos) (ca.vAs con.) oh/ri 37 5 TEl.EbyvE P. O. Soo3 (ATwoob fnerxtil Co.) n/ch 3g 7 BfEEK 7ES7/N( SER ulCE,INC. (CE RYtFY/AfG. bONAlb NE S.%!GNEK) &n 39 8 ECM 20f0 Pfo3Ec7.+fo o. P4H Pfod,eAM r,/g,. f,, Ao 8 ECW.2o92. pao 3Ec7 4797 CZb SCRAM blSCtf '?tPtNC. 94/rf Al 8 ECW 2092 Pro 3Ec7 4 798 Nn pC]\\wE nns posur W
- PtPEfpstur AM B-S4R c/rfg, A1
( 7ELEbYvE Erst. SEAsqcE.S ECA/ l. E b6EA-up icument Types: I Column Nos. Drawing 5. Purchase Order
- 1. Sequential Item No.
Specification 6. Internal Hemo
- 2. Type of Document -
Procedure 7. Letter
- 3. Date of Document QA Manual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary)
- 4. Revision No., if appl
Inspector A wa c. smires neport No _ s zb Scop /Hodule 9A PRoHAr1 EoAtuATieo DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page '/__o f / 7-l 1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 -f 1 8 '1)DCumca T coxi7xot REco,el) B-s+P/ o 4+ 7 'hocum cN r r Ausnorrne. Ws 3 fro: A4A G424 McNAsvM PotutR Cott) 5 ths 4 i +5 g hocumENT M v72ot .eEcoAb &~5420 + .s I +(s ? h ocu n cx.7 7 x A xis m s t rA t 3-47 fro:nws/A ^<wasae Powce Coo.) cQ \\ 47 9 'h oewcm, conrtot gecoxb
- >qsp proxe cy.gio o en i
49 7 DOCUMENT T R A Ass m s T 7 4 'h - 3 3 (70: FoSTod E1VSon CO.)
- Ygg,
+9 f h oru m EA'T Ct/ A A/6 6 D O E R-2 7 7 A~ So '7 RE4 c70K. CONTAoOs 74/C. 7;ensoss 77AL R.Eco!.h st o - o pf. g; 3 FROJEcT QA PfoCEbuts AtoIE LT : 2 W+/t93r/193t. Yef 57 g PEk scNNE L FILE !~o4 ben (pAqu Soonoo) S3 g P G * % Arv E L Fo L C-I~ o L'bE R~ (dbtA'A*> 3 A'**UY') ~ S4 g etaso~us' rit e. r oOen-( n,g g.Aur) g5 g P E r s o w s t. fitt fo tbER~ ( uct enr^) i S t. g PcxsevNet psee ko G* *. ( cotu^rs VA++) cument Types: I Column Nos. Drawing 5. Purchase Order j
- 1. Sequential Item No.
Specification 6. Internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document Procedure 7.
Le tter
- 3. Date of Document QA Hanual 8.
Other (Specify-if necessary)
- 4. Revision No., if appl
'Wd'% V Inspet.tur a vA <_. Sm / 7# ~ ' Report N3. " F 2 -o Scop /Hodule 9A Pfo#AA/*f EUAcv4T/ov DOCUMENTS EXAMINED Page /# of fL. 1 2 TITLE / SUBJECT 3 4 S7 3 PERSoAwEL FILE roLbEA. DVC w ENos) PEssonw&L FIL G FDL)6K {pagg ppfg4m) Ss _r9 f PEssowEL fits fotbstr. (ssArikA M k A n m e s) (,0 g PEASONNEL f/LE f o c > ER-- ( 'RA MEs4 C. NA YA A) (, l 9 PERSONot L FILE F OL>cn. ( SLINCHAZ TMA VO L ?l5 A L g,1 3 PEESo++cL //' 6 f o ' D E 4. &*A 4H u (At T. RATH:)
- c. 3 g
PEA,sommt e pn.c FeQEst-( BAMA btM. A. I4 tiA N) t, A 1 PEK MNo El. F/te F o t b E ft. (typyytA s t, Apppggqc.7) s t ces 3 TELEbypE E46f. SEAWCES IN TERin boewc47 CON 7/o t. S YfrEm ^ gif GC 3 SPEctAt.. 0A ProCEbesgE SGAP-f/-6 / o C7 2 ANSz N45. W 9 62 3 YES rEcNN/ cat. E46/bf6E'/46 PADCEbc/RE ~TEP-/-dQ4&E}btT!Af 0F foCIStI CWW54B 9&s O 69 3 rEs rseawren L Ev+/scessoc-ProcEbestf TEP-6-o03 l ,gj,, 3 7o 3 rss Prose c7.r.r//, 'l> cart >ES/6N AE VERIFICATIov scument Types: I Column Nos. Drawing 5. Purchase Order ' 1. Sequential Item No. Specification 6. Internal Memo
- 2. Type of Document Procedure 7.
Le tter
- 3. Date of Document QA Hanual 8.
Other (Spectfy-if necessary)
- 4. Revision No., if appitc
. */ l l 4 1 L. '4 o 1 p p t / 4 o a / 0 N 'J h 9' mnni ttf 3 e f t o eeemm. t uu I o N cco / / l ooN t ADD . i n r stffo o e onooi p g R P He s e a ueei nqpt v meyae uSTDR lo.... C1234 f 4 D E T v N C b I E M J E A B L X U E E S T / S E T L O N T C E I M T UC O D D / 1 A 7 9 1 N l ) D ~ y 7T r H A as G t s /F e / I c C e P'E n S E f v i S" o r y i eo f m E / re c A dm i OM e m { J p S el S 4 A C / sa ( 7 A anr P A hrer / m m cet e rtth A unet S PILO 4o 4 r B 5678 4 v AO c n A o e i l s t r u e ael o d t o 2 z
- L.
p cra ygi uu c M Tnfd n e / i iea p p t wccH s o naeo n c 2 erprA j S 1 I y 7 mDSPQ uc I i !1 .!!I! .}}I!1 l t ,I v .l l 1 l !i I j: 1
f*1 < I2. of n p ~ A 14.NDANCE LIST 12~O) COMPANY:lGLGDYPE SMMM4M SmcN POCKET NO. 9Uoo[]3 Date: j9pg/t 2; /9 F2,I l Pre-pection Conference @ Post Inspection Conference ~ ~ (Please NAME (Please Print) JITLE (Piense Print) OP.GANIZATION Print) Ta T% I T/>s PR7ei< US N//d W C bbrAv b ../A n46 8 hasis65MSA 4w e E. Janused JR Lhc& fRN5. % /dzEddsfal % es 4, n nac er y Ma,a,, - zm. veu, t red., < 7~ E. S. We-As /od 0e //o k$encow-Emi-o.Si-e,Is ~ v ~ T).FLacwrzs s.h h v hwe eu. 6xg T C-C. $PRA1gCftl1 8i4. /Y/9 v$d"ZA-6' A $ / N (~- f & $ 0 $o H2RfJr 4 Os? T2il.3 DVW E E'~N d $c74V L t!A L. $MiTrf ZCO/P. O A L ELC-/2- /K A/%Q G e s O O 9 4 e D 9 9 9 l I l
g# q uy'
- .. ?
f - ^.3 4," X - e i 1982 j JUN 11 Docket No. 99900513/82-01' .a. s i Teledyne ' Engineering Senices ATTN: Mr. F. C. Bailey. President 130 Second Avenue. Waltham, MA 02254 Gentlemen: This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. D. F. Fox of this office on March 29-April 2,1982, of your facility at Waltham, Massachusetts, and to the discussion of our findings with you and members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. This inspection was made as a result of concerns expressed to NRC pertaining to possible deficiencies in the. structural analyses of the torus catwalks and piping of the Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plants. Areas examined during this inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted i of an examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector. During this inspection it was found that you failed to meet certain NRC. i requirements. The specific findings and references to the pertinent i requirements are identified in the enclosures to this letter. Please provide us within 30 days from the date 'of this letter a written statement containing: (1) a description of steps that have been or.will be taken to correct these items; (2) a description of steps that have been or will be taken to prevent recurrence; and (3) the dates your corrective actions and preventive measures were or will be completed. Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown. / FA0/*@@ RIV CI:RSS SC:RSS BC:VPB D:EIS P4
- FFud CJhaic JFv ;a pu n R.Jvhusun J4;iins
........ 5 /.18 /.8k l...... 519C2 8 2 ..... 51.D. y Z.... ... h. ?d 8 2......,y.. / 81.......... "' c * .:->........ 4g.............p. om> e
%W 5,. ~ ,.E . 4, a. * ~ f n Teledyne Engineering Services, The response requested by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by& the 1 ~ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511. ' y, 1 In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy
- T of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the -
NRC's Public Document Room. If this report contains any infomation that - you believe to be exempt from disclosure under 10 CFR 9.5(a)(4), it is necessary that you (a) notify this office by telephone within 10 days from the date of this letter of your intention to file a request for withholding; and (b) submit within 25 days from the date of this letter a written application to this office to withhold such infomation. If 3 your receipt of this letter has been delayed such that less than 7 days are available for your review, please notify this office promptly so that a new due date may be established. Consistent with section 2.790(b)(1),- any such application must be accompanied by an affidavit executed by the owner of the infomation which identifies the document or part sought to be withheld, and which contains a full statement of the reasons on the basis which it claimed that the information should be withheld from public disclosure. This section further requires the statement to address with specificity the considerations listed in 10 CFR 2.790(b)(4). The information sought to be withheld shall be incorporated as far as possible into a separate part of the affidavit.. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified periods noted above, the report will be placed in the Public Document Rocm. Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely, "Origital signed b3 U. P.QTAPOVs" Uldis Potapovs, Chief Vendor Programs Branch
Enclosures:
1. Appendix A - Notice of Nonconformance 2. Appendix B - Inspection Report No. 99900513/82-01 3. Appendix C - Inspection Data Sheets (12 pages) bec: IE Files AEOD QAB NRC:PDR Reg. Administrators, I, II, III, IV,V EHJohnson, RIV "'**k.................. .................................b........f...............f.... -+ .................i................!.......... ecep .....................................l..................{........... .}}